M1A2 SEP v.4 / M1A2D: the main tank of the near future

One of the experimental MBT M1A2 SEP v.3 with a full range of new components

In the United States, the process of development and modernization of the main combat tank M1 Abrams. In order to further improve performance and expand combat capabilities, a new project is being developed M1A2 SEP v.4 or M1A2D. The first machines of this type are planned to be manufactured and tested next year, and by the middle of the decade a full-scale restructuring of the existing equipment will begin.

Project by project

In 2015, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) for the first time introduced an experimental tank of the M1A2 SEP v.3 version (System Enhancement Package ver. 3). Testing, fine-tuning and preparation of serial modernization for this project continued until 2017. At the same time, the Pentagon developed requirements for the next modernization project - SEP v.4 (since 2018, the M1A2D index has been used).

The development of this version of the Abrams was again entrusted to GDLS. The corresponding contract was signed in August 2017. According to its terms, in the coming years, the contractor had to prepare design documentation, and then build an experimental batch of tanks. The tests were supposed to start in 2020 or later, and in 2023 they were going to launch a serial modernization of equipment.

However, these plans failed to materialize. Due to the high requirements of the customer, the SEP v.4 project turned out to be quite complex in technical and organizational terms. In addition, the development was hampered by the pandemic, the global chip crisis and a number of other factors. As a result, the first stage of work has not yet been completed. GDLS continues to design and is not yet ready to transfer experimental equipment for testing.

Serial M1A2C in service

According to the Pentagon, the construction and start of testing of the first M1A2D prototypes have been moved to 2023. Other stages of the project are shifting accordingly. Thus, the serial production of the updated equipment will be able to be established no earlier than 2025, and it will enter service only in the second half of the decade.

Production plan

In accordance with the existing contract in 2017, GDLS must develop a new project, and then prepare an experimental batch of seven tanks for testing. Such prototypes will be made on the basis of existing machines of previous modifications. Perhaps these will be tanks of the basic M1A2 version or vehicles that received one of the previous SEP packages.

Earlier it was reported that hundreds of tanks from combat units could undergo modernization under the M1A2D project. At the same time, more exact numbers or even their order were not called. In addition, it is not known what equipment will be upgraded. Both tanks with previous SEPs and older vehicles from storage that do not have such equipment can be upgraded.

It is possible that the Pentagon has not yet decided on such plans and is only working on them. A full production program can be developed only after the design of the SEP v.4 package is completed, when the technical and economic aspects of the project are finally determined.

However, it is already clear that the production of M1A2D tanks will be carried out in large quantities and will allow re-equipping a number of tank units and units. At the same time, a full transition to such a modification is simply impossible, and along with the M1A2 SEP v.4, tanks with the previous upgrade options will remain in service.

Recall that currently in the US units there are more than 1600 MBT versions of SEP v.2. The number of more advanced SEP v.3 / M1A2C has reached two hundred, and the release of such equipment continues. In total, more than 400 such tanks are going to be manufactured. It is likely that future production of the M1A2D will be on a comparable scale.

Package updates

The Pentagon and GDLS have already revealed some of the technical features of the M1A2 SEP v.4 project. Its purpose is to increase the operational and combat capabilities of the tank. Mobility should remain the same. Protection is going to be improved at the expense of additional funds and without changing the booking. Armament will be improved by replacing part of the instruments.

The new SEP v.4 update package includes all the major innovations and components of the previous one. In particular. overhead booking elements and the Trophy active protection complex are preserved. Also re-used auxiliary power unit, located in the engine compartment under the armor. The CROWS combat module also showed itself well, and will move to a new project, although its replacement with a newer product is not ruled out.

The protection of the M1A2D tank will be further improved with new means of optoelectronic countermeasures. The tank will receive a set of laser irradiation sensors, as well as a different set of smoke grenade launchers with the ability to shoot ammunition in different directions.

They do not plan to change the armament, but the fighting qualities will be increased due to improvements in the fire control system. It is planned to use new commander's and gunner's sights with high-definition color cameras and 3rd generation thermal imagers. In addition, a block of meteorological sensors will be replaced.

Like the existing M1A2C, the promising M1A2D tanks will receive the ADL programmable projectile control system. Thanks to this, they will be able to use the entire range of existing 120-mm unitary shots, incl. the newest M829A4 AKE and XM1147 AMP. The AKE product will significantly increase the potential of MBT in the fight against enemy armored vehicles. The AMP projectile, in turn, is a high-explosive fragmentation and is equipped with a programmable fuse with several modes of operation.

Benefits and Risks

All the details of the M1A2 SEP v.4 / M1A2D project are still unknown, but the available information adds up to a detailed picture. It allows you to determine the advantages and disadvantages of a new project and give it an overall assessment. More information should emerge in the future to refine the picture and update estimates.

M1A2C with KAZ Trophy

In terms of the overall level of protection, the new M1A2D will to some extent surpass previous versions of the Abrams, including the latest production M1A2C. Ballistic protection will remain the same as SEP v.3. A similar KAZ will also be used. At the same time, the risks for the tank will be reduced due to new means of optical countermeasures, which will be able to hide it from enemy weapons and disrupt the attack.

As before, firepower is going to be increased simultaneously in several ways. Without affecting the main gun, they will update the SLA with the improvement of all its main parameters, as well as introduce new ammunition with increased performance and new functions. The self-defense tool in the form of CROWS DBMS will remain the same for the time being - with the same features and parameters. As a result, the fire capabilities of the tank will increase significantly, and it will be able to solve additional tasks.

Questions are raised by the mobility of the updated tank. In the course of recent upgrades, the combat weight of the M1 has constantly grown. In the M1A2C project, this parameter reached 66,8 tons. At the same time, a 1500 hp gas turbine engine. remained the same. Accordingly, there was a gradual deterioration in specific power, throughput and mobility. It is very likely that the promising M1A2D will become heavier again. Its mobility will again be reduced, and in addition, the possibilities for transportation will worsen.

Planned development

Thus, the Pentagon does not plan to abandon the M1 Abrams tanks and wants to get a new modification. It is planned to develop a service pack that affects a number of areas and is designed to positively affect key features and capabilities. This approach has been repeatedly used in the past and has shown its advantages - and therefore is being used again.

There are high hopes for the M1A2 SEP v.4 / M1A2D project. It will extend the life of the equipment, as well as improve its performance. However, the project has already encountered some difficulties and is behind the originally announced schedule. In addition, there may be some technical difficulties. Whether it will be possible to complete the work in accordance with the updated plans and give the army all the necessary equipment in a timely manner will become clear in the near future.

Comments

[Mavrikiy]

M1A2 SEP v.4 / M1A2D: the main tank of the near future

For God's sake. From g .... candy will not work, no matter how much dung you push there.

full-scale restructuring of existing equipment.

Like the existing M1A2C, the promising M1A2D tanks will receive the ADL programmable projectile control system. Thanks to this, they will be able to use the entire range of existing 120-mm unitary shots, incl. the newest M829A4 AKE and XM1147 AMP. Product AKE will significantly increase the potential of MBT in the fight against enemy armored vehicles. The AMP projectile, in turn, is a high-explosive fragmentation and is equipped with a programmable fuse with several modes of operation.

Opportunities will appear, but only in polygon conditions.

[Bad_gr]

M1A2 SEP v.4 / M1A2D:

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Mavrikiy

From g .... sweetie will not work

Is this an abrams huh ?! :)))) Abramych is a first-class combat vehicle, a very serious opponent. And it will not be easy to fight him on the t-72b3

[koramax81]

You collective farmers, the current war has not taught anything? Tank with tank practically do not fight

[stankow]

Until you have to.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: koramax81

Tank with tank practically do not fight

Your health is exclusively your business, but still - say to drugs at least "sometimes" if you can't do without them.

[koramax81]

Can you back up your words with an example? Not?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: koramax81

Can you back up your words with an example? Not?

News April 11, 2022 - the battle for Topolskoe

“Servicemen of a tank company of the Western Military District conducted a maneuvering battle with the enemy in the area of ​​​​the settlement of Topolskoye, Izyumsky district, Kharkiv region. During the battle, tank crews used natural shelters and terrain after firing at tanks and armored vehicles of the nationalists, ”the Russian Defense Ministry explained.

news April 4, 2022 - In the area of ​​​​the settlement of Braskovka (south of Izyum), an oncoming tank battle took place. During which, according to Mikhail Onufrienko, the tankers of the 13th regiment, the 1st tank army destroyed 6 tanks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, losing only one of their own.
Or is it fresh

The Russian unmanned aerial vehicle Orlan-10 filmed unique video footage of a tank battle between the Russian and Ukrainian military. Despite the fact that the battle itself lasted only a few minutes, this time was enough for the Russian tankers to successfully defeat the Ukrainian formation, which, in addition to tanks, also included armored personnel carriers.

In short, Google banned you, or what?

[koramax81]

It's all? for 2 thousand destroyed armored vehicles?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: koramax81

It's all?

This is what was googled right away, about 3 minutes, approximately.

Quote: koramax81

for 2 thousand destroyed armored vehicles?

And who told you that tanks do not take part in the destruction of AFVs? Inner voice? And if not, then you will probably present statistics in support of the thesis that "tanks do not fight tanks"?

[Gorodetsky]

Yes, the Americans get a good tank. It’s a pity that ours, having a temporary advantage, was so delayed with the release of T14

[3danimal]

It’s a pity that ours, having a temporary advantage, was so delayed with the release of T14

It turned out to be too complicated.
We need imported components, without them (getting them a little in a roundabout way) production is very limited.

[Rome]

Something not enough information , the new modification, like the German Panther, will have an AZ in the tower, and the loader must also become a master of network-centric warfare, i.e. instead of throwing shells, he will sit on the computer and do all sorts of smart things, such as setting up interference, controlling a regular UAV, what to transfer to the network or download from Ted

[Dilettante grandfather]

those. instead of throwing shells, he will sit on the computer and do all sorts of smart things, such as setting up interference, controlling a regular UAV, what to transfer to the network or download from Ted

Download movies for adults? So that later, at a halt, to see the whole crew?

[stariy]

see the whole crew
try with the whole crew

[3danimal]

Which films?
Stream, get likes and increase the number of views

[vadimtt]

What good is he? In fact, its modernization potential has exhausted itself when it reaches 65 tons.
Further, only electronics can be radically improved - after all, technological leadership in silicon obliges.
And if you go further - then a new engine under 2500hp, and this is a new hull, and a new hull - a new armor - therefore, a completely new tank. And with a weight like the Maus of the Great Patriotic War

[spirit]

The Americans have taken a different path compared to us. In order to leave Max unification, instead of a new tank, they are gradually carrying out an "expensive" upgrade, putting on modern surveillance devices, Kaz, and airborne systems. As a result, it seems that it’s not a revolutionary Armata, but massively and not inferior (and in terms of teplokam, Kaz and other electronics) superior to the tanks of a conditional enemy

[Artemion3]

Yes, in light of the fact that the only tank factory left in America, all forces will be directed to the fleet.

[vadim dok]

For the United States, building a NEW tank plant is not a problem, only money is needed.

[Barberry25]

the problem is different - they consider the goal of tanks to be fighting enemy armored vehicles and that the enemy is either a tank or an anti-tank missile / RPG calculation .. our tank doctrine is fire support for infantry and opposition to enemy armored vehicles due to artillery is carried out

[Dilettante grandfather]

You can upgrade equipment for a long time, but not indefinitely. Sooner or later they will have to create a new MBT to replace the M1A2. I think it's better to do it sooner rather than later. Otherwise, we may get so far ahead that they won't be able to catch up.

[Vadmir]

I think it's better to do it sooner rather than later.

I agree, being a leader is easier than catching up. But there are nuances, for example, Abrams was created as a response to the appearance of the T-64 and it turned out to be quite good, surpassing the T-64, T-72 and T-80. As a result, we were already catching up. Modernization began, but Abrams also changed, like a newer design, he had advantages. Whether the T-72B3 or T-80BVM can be considered equal to the M1A2C is very doubtful. Only the T-90M can be considered a more or less adequate response. But Abrams continues to improve. The competition process is eternal and it is difficult to say who has the advantage - the one who made a technological breakthrough or the one who took this breakthrough into account and did better a little later.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Whether the T-72B3 or T-80BVM can be considered equal to the M1A2C is very doubtful.

Abrams may not be a bad car, but, as far as I remember, the good old RPGs still managed to work out their armor as expected during Desert Storm. I'm not sure that the same trick can be done with the T-72, since our tanks are tested for the effects of our own anti-tank weapons, the same RPG-6, during creation. Abrams is well protected in the frontal projection, however, like other tanks, the sides and stern of the M1A2 are much worse protected. Ours have a more rational distribution of armor in a circle, which means there is less chance of suffering from fire on the side.

[2 Level Advisor]

abrams since 1991 (30 years) very mildly speaking - they have improved a lot .. as indicated in the article and if you read, they even put KAZ on the new modification .. t-72 in 91 is also not t-72b3 ... but if You are talking about RPG7 on board (excluding KAZ) .... then I think a normal ATGM and Armata will burn both Abrams and all the tanks that are in the world .. a board is a board .. but if there is a KAZ, it’s already a question ..

[Bad_gr]

Abrams bulwark, pierced by shrapnel,

and then the side of Abrams itself, with a thickness in the area of ​​\u70b\u75bthe driver (who sits between two tanks of kerosene) 62-30mm, then along the side 32mm (30mm the side itself + a blotch in the upper part 80mm) and then (opposite the half of the combat one) goes clean the board itself is 70mm of armor. By the way, on ours the entire board is XNUMXmm and XNUMXmm in the motor area.

The Leopard generally has a 20mm board (at least I didn’t come across any other information)

[LastPS]

If the side was 80mm, like on ours, it would weigh even more, despite the fact that this is already a huge heavy machine. RPGs don’t care at all for 80 and 62 mm, you won’t get into the 30 mm area in real life at all, and five millimeters will only protect against fragments, and, well, maybe from a 12,7 machine gun from a distance, but it’s not so easy for tanks to have such armor, ideally, no one should get close to him from the side.

[Alan_McCormack]

the board has a normal problem only in the part with the MTO where only a 6.5mm screen and 25mm of armor remained (in all other respects it is 30mm of armor, a welded sheet of 30mm and another screen)

[Alan_McCormack]

the problem is that the forehead can and will save you from RPGs, but the board even t 90m is all the same 70-80 mm just steel, without dz, without rubber or something else. That is, such a board will pierce even a very ancient Faust cartridge. And this is true for most tanks.

[bulava74]

Here is an example of a competent approach to existing types of technology.

Americans on this modification will last another 20 years.

We have a pile of iron - an armored hull and a good weapon. Constantly updating the internal stuffing, thereby saving a huge amount of money without building new tanks.

Amer's generals believe that by constantly upgrading their equipment, they are on par with potential opponents - Russia and China.

[LastPS]

This is how ours do it with the 72nd family, if they did it differently, then the armata would have already entered the troops en masse and then one could argue about the difference in approaches.

[bulava74]

The cost of "T-14 Armata" is more expensive, and much more. The basis of its novelty is new electronics. Something that we have very little. And to tell the truth - No, from the word at all. They killed, in 25 years, all those productions that produced the main thing in it - the component base or, to put it simply, RADIO PARTS ..

So isn't it easier to upgrade the existing AFVs by replacing the turret with a more spacious option. For example, like the T-90.

Thus, it will be possible to cram into the new volume all the equipment that does not fit into the T-72 and T-80 towers.
Yes, our tank will not be "flying", as the journalists dubbed it. But, the efficiency of such a machine will increase significantly.
Thus, we will be able to stretch with this technique for more than 20 years. At the same time, calmly and rhythmically make new equipment, moving away completely from the Soviet legacy.

[LastPS]

They do it as far as possible, so the T-90M and T-72B3 (B3M) are obtained. These are relatively inexpensive modifications, the capabilities of which, apparently, are recognized as sufficient for the tasks of the current and foreseeable future.

[Alan_McCormack]

Well xs, what will happen to the new tower. Considering that the new t 90 has already caught up with the abrams in terms of cross-country characteristics

[Dimcor]

Yes, when Russia does the same thing, all the bots unanimously - yes, how can it be so outdated when the Americans from the 60s modernize at all - right away - that's a competent approach, well done!

[Vadmir]

The Americans took a different path compared to us.

What kind of others? We have T-64, T-72 and T-80 appeared earlier than Abrams. The T-90 is essentially an upgrade of the T-72. And now what? The most advanced are the Abrams M1A2C and T-90M, and now and then the modernization of the original models. And the T-14 is not yet in service, when it gets up, maybe the Americans will start developing a new tank if the production of the T-14 is massive, and if they make a couple of hundred, then no one will bother with it.

[Alexey RA]

Americans are going the same way as we are.
From the very beginning, it was said about "Armata" that it would not be a linear tank, but a tank of high-quality reinforcement - a kind of heavy tank of the new time. And the basis of the BTV will be "seventeenth modernization of the T-72"- T-90, and the nineteenth modernization - the T-72B3 brought to mind.

[Vadmir]

From the very beginning, it was said about "Armata" that it would not be a linear tank, but a tank of high-quality reinforcement - a kind of heavy tank of the new time.

Initially, it was said that the T-14 would become the main tank and that 2500 of them would be produced. They started talking about a qualitative increase or even about the fact that the T-14 would be a commander's tank when time passed and production did not start - it was necessary to say something, somehow justify the lack of mass orders, so they made up nonsense. With a 152 mm cannon, Armata can still somehow pass for a reinforcement tank, but given the appearance of a German 130 mm cannon and a French 140 mm cannon, Armata can only be considered as a new massive MBT, otherwise it’s not worth starting its production.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Vadmir

Initially, it was said that the T-14 would become the main tank and that 2500 of them would be produced.

Not everything is so simple. ©
2300 cars based on "Armata" are the manufacturer's Wishlist. This figure was announced by Oleg Sienko, general director of UVZ.
And the representative of the Customer, Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov, at the same time said that there would be no mass purchases.

This is a limited batch ordered for military testing. Mass purchases of this equipment will not be forced yet - according to Borisov, the military department adheres to the principle of "reasonable sufficiency."
The general plan for the purchase of tanks on this platform is 2,3 thousand units. This number was confirmed in an interview with RIA Novosti by the head of Uralvagonzavod, Oleg Sienko.

[UAZ 452]

Having two types of tanks in a subdivision, and almost everyone who differs from each other, is the "dream" of supply and repairmen. The complexity of logistics doubles, and the advantages are not at all obvious. This is not an increase in the combat capability of tank units and subunits, but rather sabotage and sabotage.
However, most likely the "Armata" will remain the role of a tank for parades and other PR actions for the foreseeable future. Well, maybe they will complete one battalion, again - to splurge and please the eyes of high authorities. And, as the events of recent months show, it is possible to fight on the T-62. If the tankers could be cloned. And how will they be able to produce new tanks in the next 10 years if all their "stuffing" is based on imported element base? To drive on the cobblestones of Red Square, you only need a hull and an engine, and to fight, you also need aiming equipment, thermal imagers, appropriate ammunition, secure communications and much more, which in reality does not exist and is expected oh, how not soon ...

[JD1979]

Quote: UAZ 452

The complexity of logistics doubles, and the advantages are not at all obvious.

Rather, by an order of magnitude, so the tank is +1, and consumables and spare parts for it ...

[Go to the]

To operate on the topic, you need to know the history and doctrine of Soviet BVs, the main task at all times was to create an accessible tank for combat units and recruits, which is why the T-72 became such. A tank for the people, and as they say, the people and the army in the USSR fought as one, we are rightfully the heirs of the Great and Mighty USSR, which for me personally is a matter of pride, therefore our concept has remained unchanged. It should be noted that the Americans have laid great potential for the modernization of their combat vehicles. The T-72 had the potential to be upgraded and we are seeing its pinnacle in the T-90M. And we NEEDED a new tank, and Armata became this platform. Another question is how to develop it now and introduce it into the troops, and of course the path ahead is long and difficult. Everything else...it's absolutely unconstructive and provocative manipulation and provocation.

[koramax81]

The problem is just mass. The Abrams factory is long gone. All new tanks are upgrades to existing ones.
and in the event of a big war, there is nowhere to replenish the tank fleet ...

[Old tanker]

As a result, it seems that it’s not a revolutionary Armata, but massively

Yes, not very massive. Even sep.v3 is only a couple hundred as opposed to 1600 sep.v2

[LastPS]

Wangyu that V3 serve in Europe, and the rest in America, whose territory no one is going to attack in the foreseeable future.

[Old tanker]

That is, 200 tanks for the European theater - is it massive?
US troops in Europe are part of NATO's Rapid Deployment Force. At the beginning of the conflict, tanks will be brought to Europe from the territory of the states. And there's no need to rant here.

[Vadmir]

This approach has been repeatedly used in the past and has shown its advantages - and therefore is being used again.

For any equipment, the modernization stock is limited, and on Abrams this limit has already almost come up against. But the development of a new tank in the United States is too expensive even for a country that prints money. I believe that the go-ahead for the development of a new tank will be given when the T-14 Armata and the German Panther KF51 with a 130 mm gun go into production.
It would be nice if Armata went into production already with a 152 mm gun, otherwise it could be lagging behind already a few years after its appearance. The French also make a new 140 mm cannon.

[Old tanker]

The French experimented without much success with a 140mm gun, and that's it for now. The Germans also tried 140mm, but decided to switch to 130. On Armata, although 125mm, but with a longer barrel length than the previous model 2A46-M5. More accurate and more powerful. But it seems like 152mm has also been worked out for her (at least it was stated so), but so far it is considered redundant.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Vadmir

on Abrams, this limit has almost been reached.

Why would it suddenly? There is a lot of modernization potential. Installation of an automatic loader, a 130 mm gun, electronics upgrades, active and dynamic protection, communication devices.

[kind]

Between the tower and the hatch, mechanical water asks for sub-caliber. It's like a funnel there!

[Vladislav 73]

Quote: Good

It's like a funnel there!

Or in our opinion - a lure.

Fifty-four (T-54) of the first series. They first got rid of the bait in the frontal part of the tower, then in the stern. And then they released the domed (hemispherical) tower already familiar to us.

[Vladislav 73]

Fifty-four with a domed (hemispherical) tower

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

But after all, she also has a lure on the sides, if you take a closer look, right?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

But after all, she also has a lure on the sides, if you take a closer look, right?

He has no lure. I don’t remember how the T-54-55 has, but the T-62’s shoulder strap on which the tower stands is much wider than the hull and is partially located above the tracks. The tower is a little wider, but you can’t get under it (no reverse bevels)
T-62

[Vladislav 73]

Quote: Bad_gr

I don’t remember how the T-54-55 has, but the T-62 has a turret shoulder strap on which the turret stands, much wider than the hull and partially located above the tracks. The tower is a little wider

The large width of the T-62 turret was caused by the need to install a new 115 mm caliber gun, unlike the T-54 .. 55, in which the 100 mm gun and the turret are smaller and the shoulder strap fits normally into the dimensions of the hull. Hence the other location of the road wheels - a good visual difference. In the T-54 ... 55, the center of gravity is shifted to the stern, respectively, the stern rollers are closer, and the distance between the first and second is greater. And in the T-62, on the contrary, due to the greater mass of the tower, the first rollers are moved closer and the distance between the aft ones is greater.

[Bad_gr]

I served two years on the T-62 as a driver.

[Vladislav 73]

Well then I wasted my time on my comment. Well, maybe it will be useful for someone else.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Thanks for clarifying!
It’s just that I have a T-55 nearby, and my youngest son loves to climb on it. Here I am, while standing nearby, and saw that the tower is wider than the hull, and it turns out a kind of "bevel in the opposite direction." But you are absolutely right, it is not tempting.

[Old tanker]

The tower is wider than the body and the T-64/72/80. The railway dimension does not allow making the body wider. This is where you have to get out. The same problem with the placement of longer BPS, again, you have to make expansion "pockets".

[Vladislav 73]

Hello countryman! No, there is no lure, the dome mates with the body without any "reverse slopes".

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Yes, thanks, I already understood my mistake

[Vladislav 73]

Yes, it's such a mistake. Have you been to Victory Garden? There is an interesting copy of the fifty-four - the frontal part of the tower is already "hemispherical", and the back is still with a lure. Like this:

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Yes, just yesterday, I went there with my youngest

[Old tanker]

Such a machine stood on a pedestal on the parade ground of the ChVTKU training ground in Bishkil. Perhaps it was she who migrated to Victory Park.

[Yak28]

Why do Abrams weigh a ton 15 more than T-90? Probably armor protection there is an order of magnitude better. And if it’s also with a TUSK body kit, then here we really need to put 152mm on tanks, although now tanks mainly shoot at various kinds of shelters, and not at enemy equipment

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Yak28

Why do Abrams weigh a ton 15 more than T-90?

This is probably why:

The basis of the national school of tank design is the maximum "compression" of the machine. On the one hand, the result is a cramped fighting compartment full of shells. On the other hand, a small silhouette area, an acceptable level of protection with a mass of not more than 50 tons and fitting into the railway gauge.

[Yak28]

Well, a smaller area of ​​​​the silhouette, I think today does not make the weather, a cramped fighting compartment surrounded by shells is also not good. Yes, and Abrams will fit into the dimensions of our railway. The fundamentals of domestic tank building are outdated. I think one of the foundations of tank building in the USSR and Russia is mass production, so to speak, to create a serious numerical superiority, as in the case of the T34 tank.

[asami1567]

you apparently invented fables for yourself and now you believe in them. In a smaller silhouette in any, I repeat in ANY case, it is more difficult to hit. Well, about the railway ... And for the transportation of goods over 60 tons, special wagons are needed. They are. indeed, there are few of them. and you can’t drive the same abrams on them. they are slightly intended for something else. Yes, and the rest of the infrastructure, such as road bridges and public roads, are somewhat not intended for the masses that are in Abrams.

[bulava74]

The times of using massive tank armies are gone. Fighting becomes more localized.

But, the requirements for firepower, one unit of military equipment, have increased many times over. As a result, they try to cram as much as possible into one building.

But it is impossible to cram the required devices into a small case - there is no space. As a result, there are serious restrictions on modernization.

The size of the silhouette of the BBM (armored combat vehicle) is currently not relevant. Anti-tank weapons, ATGMs, have such destruction characteristics that it no longer matters whether the silhouette is high or low. Destroy any BBM

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bulava74

The times of using massive tank armies are gone. Fighting becomes more localized.

So the Armed Forces are being reduced. The number of connections is reduced, and the "accountable" territory remains the same. As a result, the connections are scattered further and further apart. In the same 08.08.08, the nearest "heavy" reserve of the 58th A was deployed already in Volgograd. The Yankees have the same problem - the Cold War army is no more, and in which case will have to assemble a superior grouping around the world.
And so the ability to transfer equipment by standard means of delivery is becoming increasingly important.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from asami1567

Well, about the railway ... And for the transportation of goods over 60 tons, special wagons are needed. They are. indeed, there are few of them. and you can’t drive the same abrams on them. they are meant for something else.

There is no need for special cars for "Abram". Fortunately for the Americans, the carrying capacity of a standard platform for our gauge is 70-72 tons.

But here the tank fits into the dimensions almost "with soap".

[stankow]

A smaller tank is even easier to dig in and camouflage. In defense, this is a must! Stability increases by an order of magnitude, no less!

[Old tanker]

What about stability here?
The ability of a floating craft to resist external forces that cause it to roll or trim, and to return to a state of equilibrium at the end of the disturbance.

If you are talking about a floating tank, then on the contrary, the larger and wider the hull, the higher the stability.

[stankow]

Sorry, I meant durability. For fire impact The artilleryman himself, the dug-in tank as a target - the most disgusting! :)

[vindigo]

Abrams is a monster compared to our tank. When I first saw the T-72B3, I was very struck by its diminutiveness.

[Strength]

So is it being presented on 10.10.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX? Or is it something else?

[Denis Minakov]

Probably the best dance ever.

[DWG1905]

And how many of their modernized Abrams will be enough for two weeks, and then the Abrams of the first modifications and the M60 will be removed from storage? Quality is good, but quantity matters. If we feel the Abrams by the udder, then at the psheks. If they decide, of course. The dimensions of our tanks are smaller due to other ergonomic standards, like 170 cm tall, plus an automatic loader. Although medicine says that it is necessary to move to 180 cm, the fighters have become larger. And the time for tank breakthroughs has not yet come, it's all about the size of the grouping. And now the tanks perform the functions of the NPP. If it had been possible to use a full-fledged tank army, then the results would have been different. But Armata, in my opinion, is somehow not like that, there are many questions about combat survivability in terms of electronic filling. I think I do not have one question, and therefore does not go into a major series.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: DWG1905

The dimensions of our tanks are smaller due to other ergonomic standards, height like 170 cm

I don’t know how it is now, but 40 years ago, military equipment was calculated for a soldier’s height of 175 ± cm
And by the way, about the dimensions of the equipment:
Abrams (like Leo, too) has 165 cm from the pole to the ceiling of the tower, so the loader works there half-sitting, half-standing, he can’t become full-length. And it’s not a fact that if the barn is large, then it has a lot of space inside. Take a look at the layout:

And this is how the commander and gunner sit in Abrams:
in old Abrams

also on later models.

And where do they have a lot of free space there?

[smaug78]

Compare with the BO of our tanks.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: smaug78

Compare with the BO of our tanks.

Somewhere also. I do not see the advantages of the Western layout. But the advantages of ours are a hatch over each member of the crew.

[smaug78]

Clearly, no comparison...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: smaug78

Clearly, no comparison...

And that's all the arguments? Strongly.

[smaug78]

Arguments cannot be against your cheers. You are even too lazy to compare, because cheers are stronger than facts and arguments

[Bad_gr]

Quote: smaug78

Arguments cannot be against your cheers. You are even too lazy to compare, because cheers are stronger than facts and arguments laughing

That is, there are no arguments against the photos and diagrams of the volumes of tanks that I put up. Or did you not even understand what is depicted on them?

[DWG1905]

Compared to the T-72, this is a whole mansion. Once upon a time, being in class 5, I climbed into the KV-1 standing in the TsMVS through the lower hatch. Sitting at the gunner's workplace with his right shoulder rested against the side of the tower, he also thought that it was a bit crowded. The traditions of design schools are different, which should give priority to convenience, armor protection, transportability, etc. etc. We always have a problem with engines (and there are always not enough of them for all types of equipment) and transmission, a dead engine does not pull a large mass, we do not touch the armor protection, we compress the volume. Making (designing) a box for a tank, a ship or a fuselage for an airplane is not a question, only what will it all ride, swim and fly is a question. Thanks for the pics, I can't post them. At home there is a photocopy of a bourgeois book on this topic, they compare the T-62, Leo and Abrams.

[Old tanker]

Tankers had and still have height restrictions of 175 cm, not 170.

[Artemion3]

Quote: vadim dok

For the United States, building a NEW tank plant is not a problem, only money is needed.

You are burning, that is why only ONE was left, the rest were closed and money was spent on the fleet.

[UAZ 452]

Geography requires them to develop, first of all, the fleet, and aviation is now important for everyone and everywhere. We, too, would do well to look at the map and understand how to build priorities for a land power. I read that over the past decade, 25% of all defense appropriations have been allocated to the Navy, so what kind of return did they get from the fleet, besides image losses? Does it shoot with "calibers"? So "Iskanders" work no worse, but are cheaper (considering the cost of carriers). The naval component of the strategic nuclear forces is certainly necessary, but at present it is realistic to ensure its stability only near its coast, by aviation forces and coastal missile systems. If the Americans understand that they cannot be strong everywhere and in everything, then this is even more relevant for us.

[Artemion3]

And there are many questions about the modernization of age ships and not only Kuznetsov.

[AdAstra]

No matter what they write, but he has a good gun and anti-tank shells for it too.

[UAZ 452]

The problem of our ammunition industry is that the shells are not shown at the parades, therefore everyone is on them - both the Ministry of Defense in the person of the GRAU and the military-industrial complex scored.